Life off the grid in the SW Texas desert. An experiment in sustainable living. NUMBERS AT THE END OF EACH BLOG POST: temp at 8PM,high temp,low temp,rainfall,wind conditions(CalmBreezyWindyGusty). YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/c/TheFieldLab
Daily live streams at https://www.youtube.com/thefieldlab/live

Thursday, October 18, 2012

gun talk

Welded up corner number 3.

Had a back and forth with a Facebook friend today about guns. Thanks to the major media, this person was confused about the term assault rifle and how they have no place in target practice or hunting. This was my response: Assault rifles are RAPID-FIRE, magazine-fed AUTOMATIC rifles designed for military use. They are NOT AVAILABLE for the general public. My AR-15 is a semi auto...meaning one bullet per trigger pull - great for target practice and I don't "blow my targets apart" with it. It is also a useful home defense tool. AR does NOT stand for Assault Rifle, as is commonly believed. AR stands for the original company that manufactured it, ArmaLite. ArmaLite sold their rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 designs in 1959 to Colt. 74,92,60,0,B,0

Semi-automatics can kill a bunch of people quick like the theater showing the midnight showing of Batman. Most can also be easily converted to full automatic while some started as full automatic and were changed by the manufacturer to semi-automatic to sell to the mass market.

I dont believe its an issue, the right to bear arms is not negotiable. Those who don't want to bear arms are fine with me too. Those who don't like the rights we have and don't want to live in a free country are FREE TO MOVE!

As for the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has held that its protections of free speech and freedom of the press are not a green light to abandon the protection of our vital national interests. Just as the First Amendment is not a license to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, it is also not a license to jeopardize national security.”

In light of this rationalization, often used, I thought it would be instructive to take a look at the Supreme Court decision.

The case was Schenck v. US, brought before the Supreme Court in 1919.The case against Shenck was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, which prohibited any attempt to interfere with military operations, to support America’s enemies during wartime, to promote insubordination in the military, or to interfere with military recruitment

Schenck’s crime was printing and distributing 15,000 leaflets that opposed the World War I draft.

Today, I think, in light of Vietnam, we would all support Schenck’s right to oppose the war.

But not then.

Schenck’s lawyers argued First Amendment and in a decision that was rather shocking in its clear abrogation of First Amendment Free Press rights, the court created the ‘clear and present danger’ clause, which noted that Free Speech could, in effect, be overridden by that speech creating a ‘clear and present danger’, particularly in time of war.

Justice Holmes used the term ‘shouting fire in a crowded theater’ as an example of creating a ‘clear and present danger’.

Schenck was ultimately overturned in 1969 in the Brandenburg v. Ohio decision, defending the right to free speech, and repalcing the clear and present danger clause with a very restrictive need to prove ‘imminent danger’. Free Speech was stronger, until now.

Although shouting ‘fire in a crowded theater’ is bandied about all the time, Holmes himself never suggested that you could ban shouting fire ina a crowded theater if the theater is on fire.

As the Wikileaks clearly point out – the theater is indeed on fire.

The US government has lied repeatedly about atrocities in Iraq (for example).

No one has accused any of the wikileaks of being lies.

On the contrary, the very ‘danger’ in them is that they are all true.

All too true.

And what they are really is embarassing to the government, to many governments.

I dont know! but what I do know, IZ that even though they are illegal , many people have them anyway. So I guess if one of those RPG owning criminals pull up in front of your house, ( even though its against the law) you could call the police and tell the criminals to wait until the police get there.

Criminals- If they get caught ( most who own RPGs and the explosive amo, are very good at not getting caught) they go to a federal hotel. get free health care and room and board. They find jesus inside and get saved and go to heaven later. <-- just stating a popular belief in the Christian United States 76.5 % 159 billion americans identify as christian ( majority )

Victim- get terrorized , might fire off a few shot gun shells before they get exploded . depending on who the victim family is they might not be saved and even though they are the victim in this crime they go to hell. <--- another popular belief the majority would agree with

If the above were all true I would say its a good idea for only the criminals to have guns if they would only shoot saved innocent victims, who are for sure to go directly to heaven.

but since I don't know for sure what really happens after death for anyone, I would say I would rather have any weapon I would choose in order to protect me and mine.or maybe, If I feel good about my eternal future I might choose not buy them and just choose to be blown up and be sitting on a cloud looking down on the rest of you.

SHORT VERSION IS - show up at my place and try to kill me or mine you could get dead. big deterrence!

In the United States of America, the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the right to hunt, target practice, etc. As Thomas Jefferson said, "..reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

The 2nd Amendment is settled. Critics of 2nd amendment, if you want others to give up their 2nd Amendment rights, you first give up your 1st Amendment rights. Besides, who are you to decide which amendments are more important to follow than others?

well I read your "fire" tome and truthfully found it convoluted and illogical...

try again... slow...more clear...

in terms of what people want and "freedom" that's a bigger and more substantiative question but in general your "freedom" ends when others are threatened by you.

your property rights END at the end of your nose and when others have to put up with incursions from you - they'll take a vote and your "liberty" will be restricted the same way it is - across the board - from speech to arms to polluting to anything than intrudes on other 'rights'.

Schenck was ultimately overturned in 1969 in the Brandenburg v. Ohio decision, defending the right to free speech, and repalcing the clear and present danger clause with a very restrictive need to prove ‘imminent danger’. Free Speech was stronger, until now.

Although shouting ‘fire in a crowded theater’ is bandied about all the time, Holmes himself never suggested that you could ban shouting fire ina a crowded theater if the theater is on fire.

whats hard to understand about that? right?

you said: in terms of what people want and "freedom" that's a bigger and more substantiative question but in general your "freedom" ends when others are threatened by you.

Im sure you don't mean that anyone could be feel threatened by what I could have in my home which they don't see or know about? Why would someone else's feelings over rule the USConstitution and bill of rights?

I agree there have been many occasions where congressmen and other government officials had made laws ( voting in or out thus changing the law) concerning areas they have been forbidden to do so. When they enter office they swear on the constitution to uphold it. I think that when any american who swears to uphold the constitution in their public office and outrightly goes against it, should be removed don't you think. Or maybe no one should swear to uphold the constitution any more?

Im not arguing that if someone is threatening then they are comiting a crime.

I said: why would they feel threatened by what they DONT KNOW is in my house. In other words no one has to know if I bought a weapon through the mail and kept it out of sight and in a safe place in my house. that works doesnt it?

as far as other illegal behavior that is in public view; I wasnt talking about it. I was talking about gun rights mainly and responding to your 2nd amendment comments at times.

I feel strongly about personal freedom that doesnt infringe on others freedoms. And I feel strongly about any public servant who goes against what they swore to uphold even though it is allowed at times.

" I said: why would they feel threatened by what they DONT KNOW is in my house. In other words no one has to know if I bought a weapon through the mail and kept it out of sight and in a safe place in my house. that works doesnt it?"

if laws are passed on the basis that certain actions are considered a threat - made illegal - then it don't matter if it is covert or not, right?

I mean the MOB could make your argument about their activities.

My point is that if others, a majority think that a behavior is one that constitutes a possible threat then they will act to restrict it no matter if covert or not.

You cannot legally harbor an RPG or a 55 gal drum of explosives in your house and just because you keep it under wraps does not make it legal.

You are protected from illegal searches as long as they do not have justifiable cause but it still does not give you a legal right to engage in an illegal activity.

you seem to think you have a legal right as long as it's out of sight?

No rifle is an 'assault' rifle until it is used to 'assualt' somebody. I'm not terribly afraid of someone 'spraying and praying' with an AK/AR rifle as I am with the guy with the bolt-action scoped rifle at any distance or the shotgun at close range. Those are the weapons you really should fear. Unless the person assaulting you is some gov't trained thug, the guy with the shotgun beats the pistol/smg guy everytime.

The founders of this country and the authors of the Constitution believed that the general citizenry should keep and bear arms in the equivalency of those who they may have to oppose. The founders never would have suggested that the citizenry be armed only with tomahawks when the forces they oppose were armed with guns. Today's laws are a piecemeal attempt to totally disarm the US public. The limitation of civilian's to non military weapons goes against the intent of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was not wrote into the Bill of Rights for sporting and hunting. It was to defend against a tyrannical government. Ask anyone who has fired a 30 or 50 caliber machine gun, a mortar or rocket, just how effective they are against small semi-auto arms. If the SHTF and the government goes bonkers, many of those who now fear automatic weapons, will surely wish they had one.

Please, it is magazine not clip, a clip loads a magazine, a magazine is part of a firearm. Getting that one small part of the argument right will be step forward in having people think you are informed enough to have an opinion worth listening to...

I don't think too many could describe the specific parts of a stringer missile or REP nor would they need to to understand the level of killing power.

right?

I own guns, no hand guns or ARs but sufficient to repeal an intruder and I do go practice every so often to keep me familiar with the operation so if I need to use it quick - I know how.

I support the 2nd amendment also.

and I actually AGREE with those who think our forefathers probably wanted some sort of citizen arms equity but I'm not sure they really appreciated just how deadly "arms" could become and I doubt seriously that they'd agree that all citizens should be able to own any weapon if it meant they could use that weapon to take down an airliner of sink an aircraft carrier or kill a thousand innocent people.

I'll even agree that there is no way to keep all deadly weapons out of all hands... if someone wants an RPG or stinger bad enough - they're probably going to get one.

but I also cannot imagine a world where dozens, hundred of stinger missiles are in residential homes around LAX or O'Hare, Dulles, etc.

why is all of this relevant?

because we've already decided that some weapons cannot be legitimately in average civilian hands and I presume it's been tested at the SCOTUS level and deemed Constitutional.

... AND I was TRULY INTERESTED in hearing some reasonable thoughts about what the current criteria for weapons that cannot be owned actually is...

I never imagined that we'd be talking about anyone owning a stinger or RPG as long as they "kept" in our their own property.

And I'm pretty sure if a Texas Ranger showed up on your property and saw an RPG - you'd be in a heap of trouble.